Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Embed SOPS binary in the python package #62

Open
nikaro opened this issue Jul 27, 2024 · 5 comments
Open

Embed SOPS binary in the python package #62

nikaro opened this issue Jul 27, 2024 · 5 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request help wanted Extra attention is needed
Milestone

Comments

@nikaro
Copy link
Owner

nikaro commented Jul 27, 2024

Maybe find a way to embed SOPS binary in the python package to avoid depending on the system one.

@nikaro nikaro added enhancement New feature or request help wanted Extra attention is needed labels Jul 27, 2024
@nikaro
Copy link
Owner Author

nikaro commented Aug 2, 2024

It would need to be included at build time and would require to build a wheel per-platform. Not sure i want to complicate the build process for this...

@nikaro nikaro closed this as completed Aug 2, 2024
@nikaro
Copy link
Owner Author

nikaro commented Sep 10, 2024

Re-open as this is something i still may want to do. The wheel per-platform could be easily done thanks to #71.

@walidmujahid
Copy link

I am speaking with no familiarity with this codebase, but how trivial might it be to implement a way to provide your own path to SOPS binary compared to packaging it straight up? I'm thinking if sopsy allows us to provide paths to the required binary in our own packages, we can handle it on our end.

I found this library today as part of some research I am doing for a deployment of an internal tool to a serverless function, and my first thought actually was "how do I get sopsy to read the SOPS binary I'm prepackaging/that's in non-PATH location?"

@nikaro
Copy link
Owner Author

nikaro commented Nov 15, 2024

I am speaking with no familiarity with this codebase, but how trivial might it be to implement a way to provide your own path to SOPS binary compared to packaging it straight up? I'm thinking if sopsy allows us to provide paths to the required binary in our own packages, we can handle it on our end.

It should be pretty easy to do it. And it could be a good step towards solving this issue. Let me give it a try.

BTW, initially i was thinking into embedding the sops binary into the sopsy package, but finally i prefer to have the choice available:

  • a "light" sopsy package like it is today
  • and a sopsy[binary] version that would depend on an extra and independent sops-binary package

@walidmujahid
Copy link

  • a "light" sopsy package like it is today
  • and a sopsy[binary] version that would depend on an extra and independent sops-binary package

I like the idea of having a binary option by the way, but I think having two options is the best route as you seem to have concluded. Maybe in the end, most people may end up using the binary version over vanilla/light (getting community feedback over the long term would be a good idea and could determine whether eventually make a major change by having the binary as default while keep vanilla/light around for backwards compatibility) :-)

By the way, I will be joining the community of users for sopsy. Thank you for the effort of making and maintaining this library.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request help wanted Extra attention is needed
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants